Topic: Making A Murderer - A Netflix Documentary Series - MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

[Alan_X]

The real crime profile podcast on this is a great listen. Discusses evidence not included in the documentary. Changed my thinking. I now think avery probably did it but didn't get a fair trial and was still very much set up with planted evidence.

Brendan should be let out right now though, nothing changes that.

This podcast has 2 behavioural scientists (think that's their job, listened to it all on a long drive this morning) analysing it all. While, yes, you can probably find the other evidence listed online etc to hear them talk about it is a very different matter. I don't want to spoil it too much other than to say they make you think about elements of the story in a very different way to the documentary makers and it's a good listen for a much 'fuller' picture.

won't say much more, but it's really really worth a listen.

I might have a listen - but criminal profiling has mixed reviews to say the least. Paul Britton's profiling led the police to set up the Colin Stagg honeytrap, going after an innocent man while the real killer, Robert Napper, went free and killed other women.

http://forensicpsychologist.blogspot.co.uk/2008/12/criminal-profiling-strikes-out-again.html

[Alan_X]

Give it a listen, I'm not doing it justice here as I'm knackered and tapping out my garbled thoughts on a phone. I'd be interested to know what other people think anyway. I think the big headline, and I make tv shows myself so suspected this may be the case , was that the makers may have been 'myopic' in the treatment of Steve avery.

There's def more to it than just profiling.

I am - listening now. Interesting so far.

[Xxavi]

Give it a listen, I'm not doing it justice here as I'm knackered and tapping out my garbled thoughts on a phone. I'd be interested to know what other people think anyway. I think the big headline, and I make tv shows myself so suspected this may be the case , was that the makers may have been 'myopic' in the treatment of Steve avery.

There's def more to it than just profiling.

Do you have a link for this podcast?

[Alan_X]

https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile/real-crime-profile-episode-1

[Brian Blessed]

Listening to the second episode now. No revelations yet, but it's interesting and nice to have it all laid out.

[Brian Blessed]

Sorry, revelations probably wasn't the right word. It's all stuff I've read here or elsewhere. But that was scatter-gun, so it's nice to have it ordered. It's a well made podcast with some knowledgeable people.

[Red_Irishman]

Good shout I'll give it a listen.

[Brian Blessed]

I wouldn't really expect any revelations, it's just analysis of some of the stuff that wasn't presented in the doc and I think it's useful for a full picture. Let us know how you feel after ep3.

episode 3 is a humdinger!

[armchair-fan]

Yep that's the one. I'd go as far as saying it's essential listening for anyone who watched the series.

Given that I waded through the Netflix show, if this podcast is essential, I will give it a go, have just downloaded now - keeps me away from more football chatter, which is probably healthy for me.

[Xxavi]

https://soundcloud.com/real-crime-profile/real-crime-profile-episode-1

I am halfway through the first episode and that lady, Lisa, is making my blood boil. I don't know why she is even there, I think the other 2 guys are very capable of carrying out this conversation without here interrupting them. Sure enough, there is a value in having a person to be skeptical about this profile analysis stuff, but she speaks with no arguments, this lady.

[HighSix]

The guy in the podcast sure cuts through the hearsay, incompetence & corruption really well getting to a realistic basic outline of what could have happened.

[FlashGordon]

One thing I have a problem with in the podcast is that they are basing a lot of their decision on the testimony of Brendan when he talks about moving the body from the boot of the car. Yet they both say they haven't heard the full tape from the first interview so they don't know if he was lead to that point by the 'investigators'. I know they give a caveat but they don't really stress it too much, how can they give out about the documentary not providing all the facts when they themselves are coming to a conclusion without having all the facts? Smacks of hypocrisy.

They also say that the only part of his testimony to his lawyer's investigator that can be seen as true is when he says about going over to Steven's to help him with the fire. If he was telling the truth at that point wouldn't he have also mentioned the car if it were what really happened. I think that he doesn't mention the car at that point because it was a lie in the first place that was suggested to him by the police and as they said themselves you get lost in a web of lies and he couldn't remember that particular lie at the time because he had been spoon fed a whole other newer story about raping her in the bedroom. If it was the truth he would have written it down.

It's a good podcast and does raise some questions but there's inconsistencies in it, just like the documentary and just like the case itself.

There's also a lot of confirmation bias going on with regard to their own behavioural analysis. When they're stressing about him threatening his cousin with a gun they conveniently leave out that the gun wasn't loaded. I also don't think he was caught masturbating in front of women as they say, it was his cousin who started the rumour about him having sex with his partner on the lawn.

[Alan_X]

I am halfway through the first episode and that lady, Lisa, is making my blood boil. I don't know why she is even there, I think the other 2 guys are very capable of carrying out this conversation without here interrupting them. Sure enough, there is a value in having a person to be skeptical about this profile analysis stuff, but she speaks with no arguments, this lady.

I actually think she's really good. I'm in two minds about it at the moment. There's some interesting stuff but Laura in particular has made a few very prejudiced statements and things like raising the widely discredited Macdonald triad immediately after the bit about setting fire to the cat.

Apart from there only being evidence of one of the 'triad' (bed-wetting, fire setting and cruelty to animals). in Avery's case, the whole basis of the predictive capacity of the triad is suspect. I also found things like her focus on how Avery 'should' behave when he came out of prison was a bit too simplistic.

[Igor Tripod Biscan]

I listened to all 3 yesterday and I agree with Red85, a lot of their own confirmation bias. Some contradictory stuff there as well as mentioning the statements made by Jodi Stachowski about Averys attitude towards women (a woman who has been charged over 20 times with alcohol related incidents).  Their summation and theory seems weak at best.

Found them both a bit patronising at times too.

[Alan_X]

One thing I have a problem with in the podcast is that they are basing a lot of their decision on the testimony of Brendan when he talks about moving the body from the boot of the car. Yet they both say they haven't heard the full tape from the first interview so they don't know if he was lead to that point by the 'investigators'. I know they give a caveat but they don't really stress it too much, how can they give out about the documentary not providing all the facts when they themselves are coming to a conclusion without having all the facts? Smacks of hypocrisy.

They also say that the only part of his testimony to his lawyer's investigator that can be seen as true is when he says about going over to Steven's to help him with the fire. If he was telling the truth at that point wouldn't he have also mentioned the car if it were what really happened. I think that he doesn't mention the car at that point because it was a lie in the first place that was suggested to him by the police and as they said themselves you get lost in a web of lies and he couldn't remember that particular lie at the time because he had been spoon fed a whole other newer story about raping her in the bedroom. If it was the truth he would have written it down.

It's a good podcast and does raise some questions but there's inconsistencies in it, just like the documentary and just like the case itself.

There's also a lot of confirmation bias going on with regard to their own behavioural analysis. When they're stressing about him threatening his cousin with a gun they conveniently leave out that the gun wasn't loaded. I also don't think he was caught masturbating in front of women as they say, it was his cousin who started the rumour about him having sex with his partner on the lawn.

Apologies - I hadn't read your post when replying. That's a pretty good summary of my feelings two episodes in.

[campioni]

I didn't really agree with that, its totally subjective how he 'should' react.

However I think the eu-stress is an interesting theory, and also think it's interesting where you get to (ie he probably did do it) when the lens isn't as focused on his innocence (which is was in the documentary).

It also really made me think properly about the bones and burn pit etc. Weird as it may sound I lost track of this amidst the obviously planted evidence like the key. How could all that evidence (her body) be being burnt on his property without him knowing about it?

I haven't listened to the podcast yet but wasn't it said at the trial in the documentary that parts of her burnt body (i think it was pelvic bone) was found in a quarry miles from Avery's salvage yard? To me that said the body was more likely burnt at the quarry and moved to the burn pit at Avery's property.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Yep that's the one. I'd go as far as saying it's essential listening for anyone who watched the series.

I think my issue with the series was always that the documentary makers clearly wanted to push in one direction - now there's nothing wrong with that necessarily - but I knew watching it that they'd have left stuff out for this reason. This podcast covers that really well. I definitely feel different about avery.

Which other podcast did they feature on?

I've listened to the first two episodes and I'm about 20 minutes into the third episode.

I think it's good - interesting, I love all of the profiling and the conclusions they draw from listening/watching the interviews. It brings a different element to all of this than the types of articles or discussions you see online.

I'm not entirely sure how accurate they can be e.g. they believed the first hour of Brendan's interview, when he was explaining what happened but how conclusive is that? I guess it's opinions based on their experience and it's just important to remember that.

But I like that they know the law and the procedures e.g. why there was a hole in the blood vile(?).

Have you listened to Serial? About Adnan Syed and Hae Min Lee. This is not an attempt to derail the thread, but this is where I heard Jim and Laura before. There have been two phenomenal podcasts off the back of Serial about the case, and they (Truth and Justice podcast) had Jim and Laura on to discuss one of Jay's recorded interviews. If you've listened to Serial, and liked it, then Undisclosed is on another level.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Btw - did they say avery was under suspicion of sexual assault of a family member at the time? I'm not making that up am I?

Yes! A female teenager in the family. And Brendan Dassey was heard telling him Mom that he told the cops about 'Steven touching me'.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

I am halfway through the first episode and that lady, Lisa, is making my blood boil. I don't know why she is even there, I think the other 2 guys are very capable of carrying out this conversation without here interrupting them. Sure enough, there is a value in having a person to be skeptical about this profile analysis stuff, but she speaks with no arguments, this lady.

At first, I was the same - I thought she was so unbelievably out of her depth. Now I just think she is there to represent the viewer, ask questions that we might ask as listeners e.g. what certain things mean, to go over some things etc... I think she brings a presenter/journalist edge, she often steers the direction of the conversation. Listening to the two profilers might get a bit mundane/boring.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

This article from the guy who testified for avery in 2003 backs up some of the stuff in the podcast - the masturbation incident/driving off the road thing is mentioned...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/steven-avery-sadistic-violent-says-7294941


Sorry is it called the truth and justice podcast or undisclosed btw? Will be on that this evening!

Jim and Laura were on one episode of Truth and Justice but Undisclosed is the one you need to listen to if you've listened to Serial. There's a bit more here: http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=325928.0 (I'll add a comment in there about the podcast, so not to derail this thread, that you should look at if you're about to download as there are quite a few episodes.)

[FlashGordon]

I listened to all 3 yesterday and I agree with Red85, a lot of their own confirmation bias. Some contradictory stuff there as well as mentioning the statements made by Jodi Stachowski about Averys attitude towards women (a woman who has been charged over 20 times with alcohol related incidents).  Their summation and theory seems weak at best.

Found them both a bit patronising at times too.

I wonder is a woman more likely to believe another woman's accusations of domestic violence than a man would? I know i'm not an expert on the subject but Jodi doesn't seem very reliable to me? Of course if he has actually been abusive towards her then that is a horrible thing but still doesn't make him a murderer.

The two are very quick to pigeon hole him as a likely murderer because of some things he has done way in the past or is accused of doing in the present (at the time). It's actually a bit funny that they've ended up doing what the original cops did back in the 80's only this time thy're not basing it on appearance they're basing it on accusations and transgressions from way in his past.

[FlashGordon]

This article from the guy who testified for avery in 2003 backs up some of the stuff in the podcast - the masturbation incident/driving off the road thing is mentioned...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/steven-avery-sadistic-violent-says-7294941


Sorry is it called the truth and justice podcast or undisclosed btw? Will be on that this evening!

Again i'm pretty sure even the police report states the gun wasn't loaded, makes a huge difference I think. Sounds like a person who regrets helping to free Steven Avery in the first place and now just wants to get it out there that he thinks he's a bad, evil man. He goes on about the murder being sadistic, there is not one bit of evidence to support this. Only thing that implied this was Ken Kratz outrageous press conference and Brendan Dassey 'confession'. Oh shock he's also wrote a book about the whole story 

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

I think it's important to remember that these two aren't police officers who have had all of this evidence presented to them, having to make a decision whether or not someone was guilty of murder.

They have lots of information, evidence, witness statements etc... that the whole world has seen and had a say on, all they are doing is using their experiences and knowledge to dissect some of the evidence/information/testimonies and see if there are any indications or signs of someone being honest or dishonest - it doesn't prove that they are, but it gives a different angle to things, and maybe makes some people think about things a bit differently. They are just commentators really, who have experience that brings a more interesting side to this debacle.

I think it would be interesting if they get to the stage where they are convinced one way or another on SA's guilt or innocence, and share those opinions with us.

I'd also like to hear more of the profiling e.g. when they spoke about Brendan's answering of the cops' leading questions and his answers were said in a way where he was almost asking a question back, like 'is this right?' I thought all of that was brilliant.

[FlashGordon]

I think it's important to remember that these two aren't police officers who have had all of this evidence presented to them, having to make a decision whether or not someone was guilty of murder.

They have lots of information, evidence, witness statements etc... that the whole world has seen and had a say on, all they are doing is using their experiences and knowledge to dissect some of the evidence/information/testimonies and see if there are any indications or signs of someone being honest or dishonest - it doesn't prove that they are, but it gives a different angle to things, and maybe makes some people think about things a bit differently. They are just commentators really, who have experience that brings a more interesting side to this debacle.

I think it would be interesting if they get to the stage where they are convinced one way or another on SA's guilt or innocence, and share those opinions with us.

I'd also like to hear more of the profiling e.g. when they spoke about Brendan's answering of the cops' leading questions and his answers were said in a way where he was almost asking a question back, like 'is this right?' I thought all of that was brilliant.

I just don't think they opened up any new ideas for me, like the stuff with Brendan, if you couldn't see all that and understand it happening you should probably apply for the Manitowoc county police department. I think it's maybe a good podcast for people who haven't bothered to look up all the other evidence that hasn't made it to the documentary. They also make a big deal out of the phone calls but I've already heard some very good counter arguments to the seriousness of those. They also talk about her feeling uncomfortable around him and him answering the door in a towel, all this 'evidence' came from an unreliable witness and didn't even make it to the trial yet they are using it to back up their points. That's wrong in my opinion.

[FlashGordon]

Alright, settle down there. There's probably a lot of people - myself included - that haven't 'bothered' to look up all the other evidence not in the documentary as its a documentary we are all fans of and we aren't actually applying to be in the police.

This podcast - for me - put some of this 'other evidence' in one place and layed it out usefully. It also may have been guilty of confirmation bias but, importantly, so was the documentary. Listening to this and the documentary gives a fuller picture. No need to patronise people for looking for that.

I also broadly agree with the conclusion of the podcast.

I wasn't being patronising at all. Maybe I could've used a different word instead of bothered, everything else I've said stands. There's been loads of links on this exact thread to all the other evidence. You obviously agree with their conclusions so you're more likely to defend the podcast, it's only natural. From my point of view i'd already heard all this evidence before so there was nothing new in it for me in that regard. As I said last night, it's interesting in parts but too many inconsistencies.

[Johnnyboy1973]

Fucking hell, people still caught up on him killing a cat.

Personally, I hope he is a masturbating in public cat barbecuer.

Still would have absolutely no relevance as to whether you believe the prosecution case proven or not.

I say would but mean should, but then again you know the general public.

[Johnnyboy1973]

how that makes you feel about him and his case.

So because he chucked a cat on the fire you feel he is more likely to be guilty?

[Johnnyboy1973]

I don't think it did. It could have left it out altogether which is what I would have done because you shouldn't be drawing any conclusions from it.

[FlashGordon]

Sorry I read your suggestion of applying for a job in manitowoc differently. Anyway...What's your conclusion on it all?

I don't know that i'd outright defend it - I had some issues with it too - more that I think it's useful for balance. As I've said the documentary very heavily lent in one direction - that's not to say that isn't correct - but that I knew there was more too it. The cat story is the essence of this - how the documentary presented it was, it seem, quite different from what happened.

My conclusion is that I haven't really got a clue if he did it or not, if I was pushed to answer I'd say he didn't do it. I do know that he shouldn't have been convicted with the case the state made against him.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

I just don't think they opened up any new ideas for me, like the stuff with Brendan, if you couldn't see all that and understand it happening you should probably apply for the Manitowoc county police department. I think it's maybe a good podcast for people who haven't bothered to look up all the other evidence that hasn't made it to the documentary. They also make a big deal out of the phone calls but I've already heard some very good counter arguments to the seriousness of those. They also talk about her feeling uncomfortable around him and him answering the door in a towel, all this 'evidence' came from an unreliable witness and didn't even make it to the trial yet they are using it to back up their points. That's wrong in my opinion.

I think most people could see that Brendan was being exploited and manipulated but it was nice to hear someone reinforce that by pointing out how he spoke, his language etc... I wasn't in a position where I thought he was making a true confession and suddenly had my mind blown by someone suggesting his answers to leading questions were of someone seeking confirmation that what they were saying was what the other person wanted to hear.

It was just an interesting side to something we had heard/read about.

With regards to the evidence that wasn't shown in the documentary - none of what was spoken was a surprise to me, as I had read it all before, shared a lot on this thread too and stalked Reddit for other tidbits. I still think it was a good podcast.

It put everything together that came out after the series, new evidence and theories, in quite a simple way, and used some profiling information and behaviour analysis to potentially explain some things.

There was a few bits that were speculative - like the towel, but for me that was their conversation and showing both sides of the innocent/guilty perspective. I don't think anyone would listen to it and take that as a proof he was a murder. It's just common sense, using your brain to caveat what might be wrong/right.

[FlashGordon]

I do agree with their conclusions that Brendan should be exonerated without a trial and that Steven should get a re-trial in a place as far away from Manitowoc as possible.

[stoa]

No, my point is the documentary deliberately left out information that would colour an audiences opinion of avery negatively. What you do with this information and what conclusions you draw from that are up to you. The podcast offers some of this information more freely, hence me banging on about it being useful for a fuller picture.

To be fair, I think they did a decent job in the documentary to not paint Avery as a saint nor turn him into a villain. I kind of feel sorry for him (more his parents) and Dassey, because there seems to be so much wrong with what has happened during the investigation and the trials. At the same time, I don't think Avery is necessarily a nice person. There's  enough evidence that's pointing into that direction like some of the stuff that has been going on in the past or even his treatment of the women in his life. I just felt there was something fishy about the way he was talking about Jodi or about his later girlfriend. At the end of the day, it all means nothing in terms of whether he has killed Theresa Halbach.

[Alan_X]

Fucking hell, people still caught up on him killing a cat.

Personally, I hope he is a masturbating in public cat barbecuer.

Still would have absolutely no relevance as to whether you believe the prosecution case proven or not.

I say would but mean should, but then again you know the general public.

Exactly - and I was just thinking that if Laura and Jim had been advising the Manitowoc County police 20 years ago then their criminal profiling expertise would no doubt have led them to 'see beyond the forensics' and believe that he was guilty of the attack on Penny Beerntsen. After all, they could have applied the same profiling nonsense (animal cruelty, fondness for starting fires, although no bedwetting) back in 1985 and concluded he was probably guilty.

There were some useful things in there but for experts in the way people are meant to behave they came across as really naive and poorly informed about the way people outside their normal experience behave.

[Xxavi]

I actually think she's really good. I'm in two minds about it at the moment. There's some interesting stuff but Laura in particular has made a few very prejudiced statements and things like raising the widely discredited Macdonald triad immediately after the bit about setting fire to the cat.

Apart from there only being evidence of one of the 'triad' (bed-wetting, fire setting and cruelty to animals). in Avery's case, the whole basis of the predictive capacity of the triad is suspect. I also found things like her focus on how Avery 'should' behave when he came out of prison was a bit too simplistic.

Yeah, that was weird to me, too. I mean, a person can be angry 1 year, 2 year, but sitting in a cell 18 years, and they expect him to come out seething or just raging. I do think I am an emotional person, but even I cannot imagine being non-stop angry for 18 years.

He is relieved at that point. Frustrated, yes. The behavior analysis seems a bit too subjective, not unlike the type of "behavior analysis" the sheriff's office was doing at the time.

[Xxavi]

I didn't really agree with that, its totally subjective how he 'should' react.

However I think the eu-stress is an interesting theory, and also think it's interesting where you get to (ie he probably did do it) when the lens isn't as focused on his innocence (which is was in the documentary).

It also really made me think properly about the bones and burn pit etc. Weird as it may sound I lost track of this amidst the obviously planted evidence like the key. How could all that evidence (her body) be being burnt on his property without him knowing about it?

Regarding burning body on his property, weren't Avery's lawyers saying that the victim was burnt elsewhere, and then transported to Avery's property? Their reasoning is that parts of the body were found miles away from the majority of the remains. It is clear that at least parts were transferred here and there.

And regarding burning the body, again, the lawyers were saying that human body is not an easy object to burn. Apparently you have to burn 12+ hours or days to get rid of all meat. Only bones were left from the victim, right? What kind of fire do you need so that you can burn here in such a short time?

[Xxavi]

I guess I'm not saying some of the slurs against him are 100% reliable, jodi for instance. However, the documentary definitely goes out of its way to paint him as a softly spoken and largely gentle guy caught in a miscarriage of justice. There are some horrendous wrongs here for sure, but I always felt the documentary worked hard to suppress some of avery's darker characteristics. I mean he threatened to kill his partner in letters from jail and it's contextualised as a man struggling with jail etc. While that's partly fair - it's also pretty troubling.

I don't think any one of us would like to live near Steven Avery, or would like him to hang around us at any time of the day or year. It is quite clear that he is what people call "hillbilly" or "white trash". Even though Making A Murderer tries to soften that truth about Steven Avery, it should be clear that he is in fact somebody we would normally avoid in real life.

For me though, the show poses some good questions. If you unjustly incarcerate a person 18 years, do you end up getting an even worse person? Do you Make A Murderer, so to speak? And just in general, the evident corruption in Law Enforcement is the most shocking part of the documentary. How can you make so many "mistakes" and keep person locked up for another 8-10 years? It's shocking because the watcher ends up thinking that "if I make a mistake and give these guys a chance, they will do anything to punish me". Including whole lot of illegal things.

In that light, the documentary reminded me of some of the Soviet scandals. There, they executed so many people for the crimes of the likes of Chikatilo...

[armchair-fan]

Alright, settle down there. There's probably a lot of people - myself included - that haven't 'bothered' to look up all the other evidence not in the documentary as its a documentary we are all fans of and we aren't actually applying to be in the police.

This podcast - for me - put some of this 'other evidence' in one place and layed it out usefully. It also may have been guilty of confirmation bias but, importantly, so was the documentary. Listening to this and the documentary gives a fuller picture. No need to patronise people for looking for that.

I also broadly agree with the conclusion of the podcast.

I agree with you.

I found the podcast very interesting, in many ways more interesting than the documentary itself, although obviously you wouldn't listen to it if you hadn't seen the original programme.  So a big 'thank you' to whoever it was who posted about the podcast on here, as I wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

I think perhaps I found the podcast useful, because it essentially said almost all of what I thought as I watched the programme myself.  In short that Avery was defo a wrong 'un, probably did it and felt he was untouchable because of what happened before, but that the police in their eagerness to convict him cut corners, planted evidence and generally behaved badly.  I'm not an expert on US law and therefore couldn't say what the implications of the way the police conducted themselves should be though - a re-trial?  Avery to go free?  As for Brendan Dassey, he was obviously a simpleton, who gave the impression of being a victim of Avery rather than an accomplice, and that his treatment by the investigators, his legal representatives and even the judge was nothing short of a disgrace.

In fact, having concluded the same as these experts all that myself, I now feel pretty pumped up with my own self importance (although not to Avery 2003-2005 levels!) - this whole behavioral analysis/criminal profiling thing seems like a piece of piss.  I've got a Psychology A-Level and a somewhat twisted mind, I reckon I'm halfway there already.

I also felt a little soiled given that I've now had 13+ hours of entertainment out of a real life rape/murder, I have tended to steer clear of 'true crime' type entertainment, but I'm beginning to see their appeal!

And finally, I had presumed the title 'Making A Murderer' was a reference to how being the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice might make you (or contribute to making you) into a murderer, but the double entendre of that version or was it the Manitowoc police who made him into a murderer by planting evidence, only just dawned on me.  So perhaps I'm not so bright after all...back to the drawing board.

[markedasred]

There was a Hollywood film in the 1980s about concentration camp war criminals (Music Box ), where this old Hungarian/American father was described as Ivan the not so terrible by his defence team, which included his lawyer daughter.
I really appreciated the heads up from was it Ciara on this podcast, but I think I am in the same postion as when the 10th episode came to an end of the documentary, Avery is a wrong un, at the very least, like the fairest conclusion they could reach on this Demjanjuk character in the film.

The point the least stressed though, because it is so unthinkable, is the fact that it was much more in the interest of the local police force for him to have killed her (or rather to frame him for that, after killing her as their best random opportunity themselves) than it was anyone else. If he kept his nose clean for a short while, he was about to become a multi-millionaire. A select few law enforcement individuals were about to become penniless to fund this. That phone call asking if they had a body, then if they had arrested Avery was very suspect, as if it was checking where they were in their plan. It has to be at least as likely as him being so dumb, even in the heat of the moment, to kill a visiting worker who you fancied.

[Xxavi]

The point the least stressed though, because it is so unthinkable, is the fact that it was much more in the interest of the local police force for him to have killed her (or rather to frame him for that, after killing her as their best random opportunity themselves) than it was anyone else. If he kept his nose clean for a short while, he was about to become a multi-millionaire. A select few law enforcement individuals were about to become penniless to fund this. That phone call asking if they had a body, then if they had arrested Avery was very suspect, as if it was checking where they were in their plan. It has to be at least as likely as him being so dumb, even in the heat of the moment, to kill a visiting worker who you fancied.

You are absolutely right. We are given two very conflicting pictures by the prosecution. On one hand, you have a low IQ, dumb criminal who does not and cannot think long term, who wants to have sex right then and there, who does not think like an ordinary man. This person would get loads of it with 36 million dollars in his pockets, but apparently, his twisted mind is such that he is not capable of thinking long term, so he does what he does - rapes and kills.

OK, but then, apparently he is an extremely shrewd, intelligent, expert (high IQ) killer as well. Otherwise, there is no way he could have so masterfully cleaned up all his mess in his trailer. The depicted murder scene must be a bloody mess. Burning a human body to bones must be hard. But this guy is an expert killer, wherever he developed that expertise is not clear since he was locked up for 18 years, but apparently he is that good. He cleverly cleans his mess up that no DNA evidence is present in his trailer or garage.

It is really difficult to merge these opposing images of him. I think the lawyers say at one point that very few people are capable of cleaning a murder scene. Something to the extend that not even police would be able to do that. I am not sure if Avery did it, but this story has too many plot holes at the moment.

[Yiannis]

I found the podcast very interesting, in many ways more interesting than the documentary itself, although obviously you wouldn't listen to it if you hadn't seen the original programme.  So a big 'thank you' to whoever it was who posted about the podcast on here, as I wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

I think perhaps I found the podcast useful, because it essentially said almost all of what I thought as I watched the programme myself.  In short that Avery was defo a wrong 'un, probably did it and felt he was untouchable because of what happened before, but that the police in their eagerness to convict him cut corners, planted evidence and generally behaved badly.  I'm not an expert on US law and therefore couldn't say what the implications of the way the police conducted themselves should be though - a re-trial?  Avery to go free?  As for Brendan Dassey, he was obviously a simpleton, who gave the impression of being a victim of Avery rather than an accomplice, and that his treatment by the investigators, his legal representatives and even the judge was nothing short of a disgrace.

In fact, having concluded the same as these experts all that myself, I now feel pretty pumped up with my own self importance (although not to Avery 2003-2005 levels!) - this whole behavioral analysis/criminal profiling thing seems like a piece of piss.  I've got a Psychology A-Level and a somewhat twisted mind, I reckon I'm halfway there already.

Ha. Exactly the same here. I was satisfied with myself that more or less (less of course) I had come to the same conclusion as them.  Thanks for the recommendation.

Thought it was very helpful. Don't think they offered what they said as something definite. Just judging by what they saw and learned afterwards and based on their past experience, offered their opinion.

Most interesting things  I thought was this (Sharado's last paragraph) which I too had somehow overlooked, Avery's possible eustress, their thinking about Dassey's only possible part of the 'confession' that may have been truthful (free narative IIRC) and they even specified if only he hadn't been led before and Laura's understanding by watching Jodi's latest interview/confession (about Avery being violent against her) that what she said, was truthful.

Regarding the animal cruelty( a horrible thing) in general and specifically in Avery's case. Of course it doesn't prove he did it. That would be absurd. It shows though inclination for future behaviour . And because behaviour pattern (or whatever it's called)  being their expertise, Jim and Laura, had to mention that.

Anyway, so many things were off in this case. I won't repeat things I have said in previous posts but never forget how poisoned the jury was with those pre trial conferences.